How the frak did I miss this thread?
I would appreciate the appearance of a few uglier adventurers. We all can't be Seoni...Or Alahazara.
That said, consider this post a vote for MOAR CHEESECAKE(and beefcake for my male-loving counterparts)!!!!
Aw man, this topic again?Preach it Lilith!
Has any called dibs on being insufferably self-righteous yet? If not - DIBS!!!
Mmmmm, Dibs...
|
Some people actually get it: Equal representation for men and women across the board. Having a whole spectrum of body types, looks and ages for both men and women is something we shouldn't even be asking for or rationalizing the lack of. Representation isn't equal before we reach that summit.
I do want sexy-looking people, especially women, since I kind of swing that way, in my products, but I want it also to be appropriate to the situation and setting.
For example, look at the Aristocrat iconic in the Core book: She's not dressed that way to catch some expected demographic(I call balls on Paizo having to do cheesecake covers or art anyway, their products sell like hotcakes as it is, just look how "sexy" those Bestiary covers are), but because the social situation, a ball for instance, calls for the sex appeal. The cleavage is there to catch eyes and sell her to potential husband candidates or perhaps she feels age starting to set in and wants to maintain an aura of erotic power that is needed in a dog-eat-dog world of high social stratum.
Now look at the character in the cover of the first adventure for the Serpent Skull AP: Sweet-ass pirate outfit and a shmexy gall to boot, yet the sexuality is presented in a way that can appeal to just about anyone who looks at the cover. She's combat-ready, smartly dressed and proud of her abilities. At least, that's how I read the pose and the look. Zero cleavage or porny posing needed.
Same thing with the new picture of Nocticula(what the hell was it with the old Demon Lords of Golarion picture?) in the cover of Lords of Chaos. She's basically the Harlot Queen of the Abyss and it shows. Yet the way the picture is posed and how her proportions are set doesn't scream cheesecake to me. She's not ballooning out, neither is she posed in way that reads "I'm available" to sweaty neckbeards. Instead it kind of looks like that this is the preferred form she probably appears in to her humanoid followers in the setting. Confident, demonic and sexy, not demographic-oriented marketing cheesecake!
See, sex is good, sex is nice, but representation and simple tact is everything.
Also, that blogger is going places, let me tell you.
As far as Conan or other idealized "men" goes, to quote...well, myself...
Let me know when we get art of pretty boys with big packages and a very toned and well defined bottom.
Then you can argue about men being equally objectified.
Additionally let me know when these guys lose their glistening bulky muscles for someone thinner and sleeker.
The fact is, men are idealized to fit the standards of beauty for other men more often then not.
City of Strangers has a pleasant variety of character art, both pleasing men (the Tallow Boy on page 46) and not-so-much women (bloatmage).
|
The fact is, men are idealized to fit the standards of beauty for other men more often then not.
No different for women though, really, considering that most of the women's magazines that promise better butts, flatter stomachs and 101 ways to win a guy (not to mention the detrimental effect they have on the self-esteem of impressionable tweens) are run by female publishers/editors.
The fact is, men are idealized to fit the standards of beauty for other men more often then not.No different for women though, really, considering that most of the women's magazines that promise better butts, flatter stomachs and 101 ways to win a guy (not to mention the detrimental effect they have on the self-esteem of impressionable tweens) are run by female publishers/editors.
Right, but a lot of women don't buy or read that stuff.
Some people(not you, I know) seem to be operating under the assumption that Cosmo and Pathfinder Chronicles are targeting the same demographics and have a massive overlap in readership. Are there female gamers who read Cosmo? I'm sure that there are such, yeah. Do most female gamers read Cosmo? I rather doubt it.Most women, period, don't read it. It's a bigger niche than PF, but it is still a niche. Lots of women couldn't care less about mags like that.It's like assuming that all guys read Maxim. That's just not true.
I read the WSJ and Backwoodsman, but does that mean that Pazio should try to make PF products and Golarion stuff look more like the WSJ or Backwoodsman?
It's like assuming that all guys read Maxim. That's just not true.
Given the thread topic and the mentioning of Maxim, what I find ironic is that the majority of sex themed articles in that magazine are written by women.
Given the thread topic and the mentioning of Maxim, what I find ironic is that the majority of sex themed articles in that magazine are written by women.
I dunno man. Makes perfect sense to me for an operator's manual (or Dummy's Guide) to be written by someone who knows how everything works. ;)
It's like assuming that all guys read Maxim. That's just not true.Given the thread topic and the mentioning of Maxim, what I find ironic is that the majority of sex themed articles in that magazine are written by women.
I wouldn't know, I don't read it.
:)
Given the thread topic and the mentioning of Maxim, what I find ironic is that the majority of sex themed articles in that magazine are written by women.I dunno man. Makes perfect sense to me for an operator's manual (or Dummy's Guide) to be written by someone who knows how everything works. ;)
I'm not saying I disagree with you. ;-)
It's like assuming that all guys read Maxim. That's just not true.Given the thread topic and the mentioning of Maxim, what I find ironic is that the majority of sex themed articles in that magazine are written by women.I wouldn't know, I don't read it.
:)
And now you know. And knowing is half the battle! G.I. Joe!
|
I read the WSJ and Backwoodsman, but does that mean that Pazio should try to make PF products and Golarion stuff look more like the WSJ or Backwoodsman?
I guess that raises the question (and I mean no offense by this, you have been very polite in this debate) that given that you appear to be somewhat in the minority in finding a lot of the Paizo art you have mentioned inappropriate, does that mean Paizo should try to make PF or Golarion products fit your specific tastes?
Paizo is marketing to a particular audience, and despite threads like this one (though normally they would have devolved into name calling and petty recriminations by now) popping up at least once or twice a year, the majority of that audience does not seem to find the art inappropriately sexualised or impractical.
|
Right, but a lot of women don't buy or read that stuff.
Some people(not you, I know) seem to be operating under the assumption that Cosmo and Pathfinder Chronicles are targeting the same demographics and have a massive overlap in readership. Are there female gamers who read Cosmo? I'm sure that there are such, yeah. Do most female gamers read Cosmo? I rather doubt it.Most women, period, don't read it. It's a bigger niche than PF, but it is still a niche. Lots of women couldn't care less about mags like that.
Actually, the point about Cosmopolitan was in response to your comment that pictures of "ordinary" women would "reach out" to said women, and Cosmo (and others) was used as a counterpoint. You seem to be assuming that female RGG-ers are not interested in feminine stuff, which seems a bit of an assumption (even a stereotype). Anyway, it wasn't suggested that there was much of an overlapping demographic anyway, Cosmo was mentioned simply to address a comment you made about how women would prefer less "sexist" art, and the response was made that magazines aimed at women have a much higher cleavage (and indeed, nipple and arse) count than any Paizo product. The point was simply "it's more complicated than that".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read the WSJ and Backwoodsman, but does that mean that Pazio should try to make PF products and Golarion stuff look more like the WSJ or Backwoodsman?I guess that raises the question (and I mean no offense by this, you have been very polite in this debate) that given that you appear to be somewhat in the minority in finding a lot of the Paizo art you have mentioned inappropriate, does that mean Paizo should try to make PF or Golarion products fit your specific tastes?
Paizo is marketing to a particular audience, and despite threads like this one (though normally they would have devolved into name calling and petty recriminations by now) popping up at least once or twice a year, the majority of that audience does not seem to find the art inappropriately sexualised or impractical.
I don't think that three pages of a thread can be extrapolated into a reliable picture of the whole fanbase- or of the potential fanbase. It's not a detailed market research project. Besides, if you've been reading the thread you'd know that several posters have agreed with me in whole or part. I reject the assertion that I'm part of some small disgruntled minority that can safely be ignored.
Actually, the point about Cosmopolitan was in response to your comment that pictures of "ordinary" women would "reach out" to said women, and Cosmo (and others) was used as a counterpoint. You seem to be assuming that female RGG-ers are not interested in feminine stuff, which seems a bit of an assumption (even a stereotype). Anyway, it wasn't suggested that there was much of an overlapping demographic anyway, Cosmo was mentioned simply to address a comment you made about how women would prefer less "sexist" art, and the response was made that magazines aimed at women have a much higher cleavage (and indeed, nipple and arse) count than any Paizo product. The point was simply "it's more complicated than that".
No, I'm not assuming that female gamers don't like 'girly' stuff. I'm assuming that their tastes are varied, just as is the case with male gamers. You are the one assuming that all gamer guys, save a few oddballs like me, are lusting after more cheesecake Seoni, booth babes, etc.
I'm asking for more variety in the art. Maybe you missed that? I'm not saying 'no cheesecake ever' but asking for LESS fanservice and MORE variety and more grit.
|
|
Actually, the point about Cosmopolitan was in response to your comment that pictures of "ordinary" women would "reach out" to said women, and Cosmo (and others) was used as a counterpoint. You seem to be assuming that female RGG-ers are not interested in feminine stuff, which seems a bit of an assumption (even a stereotype). Anyway, it wasn't suggested that there was much of an overlapping demographic anyway, Cosmo was mentioned simply to address a comment you made about how women would prefer less "sexist" art, and the response was made that magazines aimed at women have a much higher cleavage (and indeed, nipple and arse) count than any Paizo product. The point was simply "it's more complicated than that".No, I'm not assuming that female gamers don't like 'girly' stuff. I'm assuming that their tastes are varied, just as is the case with male gamers. You are the one assuming that all gamer guys, save a few oddballs like me, are lusting after more cheesecake Seoni, booth babes, etc.
A lot of assumptions here, and mostly from you. I don't assume any of that. My assumption is that most gamer guys probably vaguely agree with your view on the practicality of armour and so on, but don't care enough to get bothered by it and accept the visual langauge of the RPG medium. And it has been pointed out above that actually Paizo art does vary depending on context, with a series of helpful links. So if it's variety you want, you have it. So what are we debating here?
I would like to see more variety with the looks of women in Golarion. Give us some gals who look plain, scarred, ugly, plump,frumpy, mousy, etc. I'm not saying that all the female characters have been 'too pretty', or that I object to the occasional odalisque, but dialing down the fanservice would certainly please me. Give us more hard-bitten adventuresses who look the part, and not like swimsuit or lingerie models.
Please read through that again. I had thought I was being very clear.
An anti-cheesecake crusader would hardly be cool with odalisques. Some of you seem to have wrongly assumed that I am against any and all sexy illos. Not so. I just want to see more 'battle herald' types and less 'Seoni' types in the future.
Paizo is marketing to a particular audience, and despite threads like this one (though normally they would have devolved into name calling and petty recriminations by now) popping up at least once or twice a year, the majority of that audience does not seem to find the art inappropriately sexualised or impractical.
This discussion is probably as old as the game (1979 Eldritch Wizardry cover, anyone?). There is a difference between marketing for a specific audience and using discriminating art. What exactly makes discriminating art is a line folks obviously draw differently. For example, some folks have taken offense at the interior art of the Inner Sea Primer - I can´t fathom that reasoning. While I think that the blogger goes over the top, there are some pieces I don´t like, as they are oversexed. AFAICT, the German Black Eye RPG is successful without as much cheesecake (they had some, but much less). So, I don´t buy that you need cheesecake to sell the game - it sure helps if you aim at a predominantly male 15-35 audience. But then again, perhaps there is a difference between German and US market (not only in size).
Stefan
Except, of course, that this is not a new topic for this board. And while Paizo staff haven't got involved here, they have in the past. And they have the sales figures which suggest you are wrong, and that a sexy girl on a cover shifts product.
Correlation is not causation. I don't think that it can be taken as a given that a 'sexy girl' shifts gaming products.
Are you threatening to run to the staff? C'mon, man, that's lame. No one is attacking you. I'm not calling anyone names. You haven't called me any names. Heck, only one or two of the people whom have disagreed with me have been rude about it- and I just ignored them.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I share Sir Mix-A-Lot's opinion on Cosmopolitan, and I'll leave it at that.
Put me down as another that isn't bothered by fanservice, but would appreciate a greater variety in female character art. It's frustrating how many men and women seem to believe that while men are allowed a wide range of acceptable appearances and body types, women are are far more restricted. Dudes get designed to be primarily badass all the time with little regard for sex appeal. Female characters? Get ready for complaints from people about how she "looks like a man". Or "looks butch" or "like a lesbian"(which begs the question, what precisely is wrong with either of those?).
Why yes I am a bit bitter about backwards ass people making such remarks about women for having something as trivial as short hair. God help you if they actually have visible muscle tone.
And I'm still disappointed that my female Shepard in Mass Effect doesn't even have the option to have scars as horrific as the male Shepard's options. Oh no, never mind that you survived a Thresher Maw massacre! You only get dainty "cute" scars! Freakin' Bioware...
Keep Seoni around, but let her sister in the full body chainmail suit have her time in the sun as well. (there's another reason Seelah and Kyra are among my favorite Iconics)
Also, Artesia is very, very good. Albiet rather dry. And full of group sex.*
*less full of it than people make it out to be though
Also, Artesia is very, very good. Albiet rather dry. And full of group sex.*
*less full of it than people make it out to be though
Ewwwww......that pretty much killed it for me. :(
Oh, well, I'll always have Mouseguard. I've got signed copies from NYC ComicCon.
:)
I have always found it interesting that we as players of Pathfinder and its predecessor D&D/AD&D incarnations are perfectly willing to accept that a magical ring and/or magical bracers and/or magical amulet and/or a high Dexterity and/or the right spells and/or the right feats are all a character really needs to protect itself. Until, that is, someone decides to illustrate such a character wearing little or no clothing, sexy clothing, or sexy armor. Then it's "OMG! She'll be killed by the first arrow that hits that bare spot! Stupid!"
But if the same character wears a high-necked, full-sleeved blouse and loose trousers she's just fine. The arrows only know how to hit the sexy girls after all, right?
...this is not a new topic for this board. And while Paizo staff haven't got involved here, they have in the past.
Are you threatening to run to the staff? C'mon, man, that's lame. No one is attacking you. I'm not calling anyone names. You haven't called me any names. Heck, only one or two of the people whom have disagreed with me have been rude about it- and I just ignored them.
It doesn't sound to me like Aubrey is threatening any such thing. Having read more than a couple of the prior threads on this topic, I read that statement as merely a statement of fact.
Historically discussions on this topic have degenerated into flame-fests. When that happens, it invariably becomes necessary for Paizo's staff to take time away from other job functions to moderate the forums.
FWIW, thus far this has been about the most civil discussion on this topic that I've seen so far. Of course, it's also only at the top of the 3rd page still. Give it time. ;)
I have always found it interesting that we as players of Pathfinder and its predecessor D&D/AD&D incarnations are perfectly willing to accept that a magical ring and/or magical bracers and/or magical amulet and/or a high Dexterity and/or the right spells and/or the right feats are all a character really needs to protect itself. Until, that is, someone decides to illustrate such a character wearing little or no clothing, sexy clothing, or sexy armor. Then it's "OMG! She'll be killed by the first arrow that hits that bare spot! Stupid!"
But if the same character wears a high-necked, full-sleeved blouse and loose trousers she's just fine. The arrows only know how to hit the sexy girls after all, right?
That's a valid point, but I would not go too far with it, myself.
Why is the male iconic fighter wearing so much armor and so much clothing? He must have plenty of protective items and can afford to go into battle in a Speedo.
:)
I agree with you that an individual heroine might choose to dress in a sexy way, despite the seeming impracticality of this for combat and adventuring. I certainly do agree that protective items would help compensate for lousy armor. I just don't agree that the setting material assumes that magic items are so common that this would be a major trend. I also don't agree that so many women would choose to do it, even if they could. That seems very fan service oriented, to me.
FWIW, thus far this has been about the most civil discussion on this topic that I've seen so far.For srs. This is practically Salad Days compared to those hellholes.
Well, as the OP, I've tried hard to keep the thread that I've started civil, friendly, and open. Many of us have strong opinions, but that's no reason to be rude.
I prefer to think of this as a friendly discussion among gamers, about a game we all like, and not as a heated debate in which one side must 'defeat' the other.|
|
Why is the male iconic fighter wearing so much armor and so much clothing? He must have plenty of protective items and can afford to go into battle in a Speedo?
1. He doesn't care much about his Arcane Spell Failure Chance?
2. He's actually proficient with heavy armor?3. He's on the front line of the battles, and needs MORE protection that someone who stays in the back making shadow puppets, speaking in Latin, and playing with owlbear dung?
I prefer art that I don't need to 'rationalize', because it actually looks like the sort of stuff you'd expect from reading the book,playing the game, etc.
That said, no one's trying to take away your Seoni. ;)
I'm just suggesting that Paizo scale back the fanservice and give us a little more grit to match their fairly gritty house setting. The grit level is okay now, but could be improved.
Fan service? Are you kidding me?
Look I can think of maybe two examples of peices that might accurately be described as fan service in all the art produced by paizo for books.
shots of underwear, compromising nudity and the appearance of sexual arousal amongst the art of pathfinder is almost non-existant.
Also, Artesia is very, very good. Albiet rather dry. And full of group sex.*
*less full of it than people make it out to be though
Ewwwww......that pretty much killed it for me. :(
Oh, well, I'll always have Mouseguard. I've got signed copies from NYC ComicCon.
:)
There is sex, yes. But it is not there for the purpose of titilation. It is part of the story. The entire series is about sexual and religious politics, magic and war. It tries and successeds to deal with the issues in a mature and interesting manner, and cutting out the sex would be cutting a large part of the soul of the story out of it.
Artesia, the title character, is a priestess and witch. She has responcibilities both supernatural and social to a number of the gods and their worshippers. For instance, when she performs cerimonies revolving around the twin goddesses Ami and Dieva, she has responciblities related to their social and divine role (I.e. during the day performing marrages and at night leading seekers throught the mystries which are in herent in sexual acts)
Artesia is also a commander and newly minted queen, who has committed regicide, and is now leading a fractious alliance from numerous highland kingdoms in defence of their lowland neighbours. Oh, and her lowland neighbours see regicide as a religious crime, along with witch craft and worship of the old gods. Oh and their masogonists.
In short, while she has great skill at arms, and is a skilled general and devotes worshiper of the war gods, Artesia draws upon her beauty and sexuality as well, as a tool of governence. She makes men lust for her, and uses sex as a way of binding her officers to her. She also uses it to bind some of the lowlanders to her.
And all of this has conscequences, physicial, social, emotional and magical.
Artesia is haunted, while the sex scene themselves are well drawn and interesting, hell even arousing, they are there to provide headspace for artesia. It is in these scenes that the ghosts and spirits that haunt artesia question her wisdom, her actions and point out that for each of her choice, there will be a price to pay.
I hate to say this, but it seems to me that you are turning your nose from a wonderful series and a lot of great art, not out of principle; after all sexual imagery is not inherently anti-feminists as any sex positive feminist can attest, but out of prudishness.
Why is the male iconic fighter wearing so much armor and so much clothing? He must have plenty of protective items and can afford to go into battle in a Speedo?1. He doesn't care much about his Arcane Spell Failure Chance?
2. He's actually proficient with heavy armor?
3. He's on the front line of the battles, and needs MORE protection that someone who stays in the back making shadow puppets, speaking in Latin, and playing with owlbear dung?
Ah, good, so you agree with me that female fighters and other frontline combatants should be fitted out just like the men, as a general rule. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this.
More battle herald!
4. As a fighter he gets class bonuses to his AC for wearing armor above what any other martial class gets while not being hampered by it to the same extent.
5. He's sinking that wealth into the much more expensive upgrades for his weapons.
6. A suit of even +1 masterwork full plate is still much less expensive than comparable magic items. (Other classes, not having armor specialization and having other roles, can't afford the non-monetary 'costs' of wearing such heavy armor.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4. As a fighter he gets class bonuses to his AC for wearing armor above what any other martial class gets while not being hampered by it to the same extent.
5. He's sinking that wealth into the much more expensive upgrades for his weapons.
6. A suit of even +1 masterwork full plate is still much less expensive than comparable magic items. (Other classes, not having armor specialization and having other roles, can't afford the non-monetary 'costs' of wearing such heavy armor.)
Right, all good reasons, all of which would apply equally to a woman who is a fighter.
Women need armor as much as men, if they are going into the forefront of battle. Witness the paladin iconic and the battle herald.
I share Sir Mix-A-Lot's opinion on Cosmopolitan, and I'll leave it at that.
Put me down as another that isn't bothered by fanservice, but would appreciate a greater variety in female character art. It's frustrating how many men and women seem to believe that while men are allowed a wide range of acceptable appearances and body types, women are are far more restricted. Dudes get designed to be primarily badass all the time with little regard for sex appeal. Female characters? Get ready for complaints from people about how she "looks like a man". Or "looks butch" or "like a lesbian"(which begs the question, what precisely is wrong with either of those?).
Why yes I am a bit bitter about backwards ass people making such remarks about women for having something as trivial as short hair. God help you if they actually have visible muscle tone.
And I'm still disappointed that my female Shepard in Mass Effect doesn't even have the option to have scars as horrific as the male Shepard's options. Oh no, never mind that you survived a Thresher Maw massacre! You only get dainty "cute" scars! Freakin' Bioware...
Keep Seoni around, but let her sister in the full body chainmail suit have her time in the sun as well. (there's another reason Seelah and Kyra are among my favorite Iconics)
Also, Artesia is very, very good. Albiet rather dry. And full of group sex.*
*less full of it than people make it out to be though
I'll join you in that. I would love to see a wider range of shapes sizes and body types amongst the NPCs and Future Iconics. And while Paizo is better than most at porviding a range of gender and sexuality in their NPCs, i would still like to see a lesbian character whos a little more butch, and a little less lipstick.
Another thing to consider about armor practicality:
You know all those spikey bits that artists are fond of putting on fantasy armor (i.e. anti-paladin Seelah)? Yeah, that's just going to snag everything you walk past, get bent and lock up an arm when its impacted, or a million other mishaps that will get you killed. Yet when does that ever happen?
I've always figured the same magic that allows skimpy armor to protect the hot heroine must also allow the dastardly bad guy you actually be functional in their unrealistic and overly stylized armor.
FWIW, out of all the female iconics (and the gear in which they are depicted), my favorites are Seoni and Kyra.
I'll join you in that. I would love to see a wider range of shapes sizes and body types amongst the NPCs and Future Iconics. And while Paizo is better than most at porviding a range of gender and sexuality in their NPCs, i would still like to see a lesbian character whos a little more butch, and a little less lipstick.
I'll second that, sure. It's actually pretty close to what I suggested in my first post. More variety, more grit, less emphasis on 'sexy babes'- but NOT an end to all pics of scantily clad, buxom women. I think maybe some people missed the bit about odalisques.
I'm totally cool with this kind of stuff, so long as it doesn't dominate the books:
http://www.art-reproductions.net/images/Artists/Eugene-Delacroix/Odalisque- Reclining-on-a-Divan.jpg
http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/s06/sdajani/images/odalisque.jpg
Another thing to consider about armor practicality:
You know all those spikey bits that artists are fond of putting on fantasy armor (i.e. anti-paladin Seelah)? Yeah, that's just going to snag everything you walk past, get bent and lock up an arm when its impacted, or a million other mishaps that will get you killed. Yet when does that ever happen?
I've always figured the same magic that allows skimpy armor to protect the hot heroine must also allow the dastardly bad guy you actually be functional in their unrealistic and overly stylized armor.
FWIW, out of all the female iconics (and the gear in which they are depicted), my favorites are Seoni and Kyra.
I hate spikey armor, as a general rule. The spikier it is, the more I laugh. AD&D/D&D armor art was usually not too spikey until fairly late in the TSR era. Planescape inlcuded a lot of dungeonpunk stuff that just looked wrong to me. 3E went nuts with armor spikes and whacky shields. PF seems to have taken a modest step back towards armor sanity- except for the boob windows and such for too many of the women.
I hate spikey armor, as a general rule. The spikier it is, the more I laugh.
Hey, we found some common ground after all! W00T! ^_^
I hate to say this, but it seems to me that you are turning your nose from a wonderful series and a lot of great art, not out of principle; after all sexual imagery is not inherently anti-feminists as any sex positive feminist can attest, but out of prudishness.
Huh? Feminism?
No, I am not a feminist.
I hate spikey armor, as a general rule. The spikier it is, the more I laugh.Hey, we found some common ground after all! W00T! ^_^
Hell, yeah!
I don't even think that think our positions on women in the art are actually all that far apart, given the content of your more recent posts. We'd both like a little more variety. My tastes are , it would seem, perhaps more grounded in a gritty/historical sensibility than are yours, but we aren't at opposite ends of the spectrum.
|
|
Except, of course, that this is not a new topic for this board. And while Paizo staff haven't got involved here, they have in the past. And they have the sales figures which suggest you are wrong, and that a sexy girl on a cover shifts product.Correlation is not causation. I don't think that it can be taken as a given that a 'sexy girl' shifts gaming products.
Are you threatening to run to the staff? C'mon, man, that's lame. No one is attacking you. I'm not calling anyone names. You haven't called me any names. Heck, only one or two of the people whom have disagreed with me have been rude about it- and I just ignored them.
Don't be silly - I'd flag you and be done with it if I wanted to do that. I'm pointing out to you simply what the guys with the access to the sales figures have stated for your edification, since they have avoided this iteration of the discussion.
And you are right, correlation doesn't imply causation, but it is suggestive that there is a causative effect. Specifically (back in the day) they did some race-specific Dragon issues and the one with the dwarf on it (a beefcake dwarf too, with bare chest, if I recall) sold less well than other issues which normally had females on. Interestingly, the halfling cover was a female rogue who, frankly, didn't look like a halfling at all - can't remember if this was after Dwarfgate or not. (I think there was also one with a Greek god-type (male) which actually generated complaints from some of the readers.) So I think, based on the above, there is good reason, albeit anecdotal, to assume there is a real effect here.
Embedded in this Cheesecake discussion is a realism discussion as well. I can live with fantastic, if unrealistic, armor and equipment in a fantasy setting to a certain degree, as I can live with unrealistic and oversexed depictions of persons to a certain degree. For the most part, walking a line between "still realistic" and "moderate fantastic" would do for me.
It bothers the hell out of me if some movie, comic book or whatever implies a realistic depiction of a certain cultural level (medieval or whatever) and goes over the top later on. Hell, there was once a rather awful TV movie about the Nibelung saga, allegedly playing in the 5th Century AD, and they showed a romanesque church right in the opening scene, which would have been dated to about 900 AD. My wife teases me to this day with my reaction to this crap. (That the Siegfried actor talked in a modern-day western german idiom did nothing to improve it, either)
I don´t need a scientific accurate depiction of real medieval armor in a fantasy RPG, and I can live with other artistic liberties as well. But it needs to be coherent somehow. To get back on topic, I don´t need gratuituous (semi-)nudity to enjoy (or buy) a fantasy RPG book (or any other, besides books where nudity is the topic), and would indeed be rather embarassed to buy books with exaggerated cheesecake covers. To this date, I had no problem with the covers of paizo books, but I mailordered most of them anyway. I would object to the art style of Boris Vallejo on PF book covers, as I think his art to be cheesy in the extreme. As I said before, I think fantasy RPGs do fine without cheesecake covers (or excessively bloody ones, like Games Workshop did for example on their Runequest edition in the 80ies), but I´m not overly bothered if they appear now and then.
Oh, and I just googled for this Artesia comics - almost all pictures I found showed her wearing late gothic full-plate armor, with only one or two showing her half-naked. Could be an interesting comic.
|
|
Let's take a look at the iconics: The only ones that really should be wading into the physical battle on a regular basis are Alain, Amiri, Harsk, Imrijka, Sajan, Seityiel, and Valeros. Of those, the only ones not wearing substantial amounts of armor are Amiri, Sajan, and Seityiel. Amiri is a barbarian, and they traditionally don't wear heavy armor. Sajan is a monk, and does better WITHOUT armor. Seityiel would suffer an Arcane Spell Failure Chance if he was wearing armor. Damiel 'Hulks Out' so armor would be a bad idea, Kyra seems to be wearing at least medium armor, and Merisiel is wearing rogue-appropriate armor. All the others are pretty much casters who should be staying away from melee.
|
|
I don't think that three pages of a thread can be extrapolated into a reliable picture of the whole fanbase- or of the potential fanbase. It's not a detailed market research project. Besides, if you've been reading the thread you'd know that several posters have agreed with me in whole or part. I reject the assertion that I'm part of some small disgruntled minority that can safely be ignored.
No need to get so defensive. I wasn't calling you disgruntled or suggesting that you be ignored. I certainly have been reading this thread and have observed that (a minority of) posters have completely agreed with you and that more have agreed with a point here and there.
I've also read several other threads on almost identical topics here in the past and have observed that a large majority of the posters appear not to be unhappy with the portrayal of women (and men) in the art.
I don't claim that reading a few threads lets me understand the entire fan base, but from comments that Paizo staff members have made around the place, combined with comments from many members of the community, it appears quite clear that most people prefer to look at depictions of attractive people, and that magazines and books with attractive people on the covers sell better than those with-out.
|
|
Let's take a look at the iconics: The only ones that really should be wading into the physical battle on a regular basis are Alain, Amiri, Harsk, Imrijka, Sajan, Seityiel, and Valeros. Of those, the only ones not wearing substantial amounts of armor are Amiri, Sajan, and Seityiel. Amiri is a barbarian, and they traditionally don't wear heavy armor. Sajan is a monk, and does better WITHOUT armor. Seityiel would suffer an Arcane Spell Failure Chance if he was wearing armor. Damiel 'Hulks Out' so armor would be a bad idea, Kyra seems to be wearing at least medium armor, and Merisiel is wearing rogue-appropriate armor. All the others are pretty much casters who should be staying away from melee.
Let’s look even further at the named Iconic characters, who, in a way, are the ambassadors of the Pathfinder brand. As various depictions of individual Iconics vary somewhat from illustration to illustration and artist to artist, we had best look at the original Wayne Reynolds depiction of each character. Of course, it’s not really fair to judge practicality of equipment, armour and clothing on these illustrations, as the characters are clearly posing to have their portraits painted, rather than being in the midst of an adventure or action scene. Still, let’s assume that they are about to set off into the field or dungeon, and are dressed and equipped as such.
I’ll judge each Iconic on whether they could be called conventionally attractive (which is obviously subjective, but for this purpose means they are human or humanish – let’s assume that pointy ears are not a mark against in this regard for most fantasy fans – they have an apparent age of between 18 and 45, they are of roughly average or above average height, or roughly average or below average weight and have no obvious physical deformities); whether they appear to have larger than average sized breasts and/or particularly muscled and sculpted torsos (apparently, if Wikipedia can be believed, the average bust size in the USA is a 36C); whether they are showing an excessive amount of cleavage and/or bare flesh (subjective); whether they bear any obvious scars, wrinkles, blemishes or deformities, or are fat or balding; and whether they seem appropriately attired and equipped for adventuring, based on probably being involved in a lot of combat and action as well as their class and likely role in an adventuring party.